Grand_Commander_LuXun

When the Helena at Tier 7 first came out, I expected her to have a set of average stats noticeably above that of other Tier 7 cruisers both heavy and light. Now she's one of the better performers but not particularly outstanding because USN cruisers require that island camping playstyle to a larger degree than other cruiser lines. She's still my favorite cruiser for now though. This isn't related to the thread (I am hesitant to give Italian cruisers a shot because of the SAP) but how do you anticipate the British CAs doing in terms of average stats?

Considering that Atlanta, Helena, and Boise are so far my favorite ships to play, I am worried that these changes will bring them difficulties. It could be the end of an era for the IFHE l have grown to enjoy. I may have to shift my play more towards heavy cruisers and battleships from now on. If these changes hit the 3 ships pretty hard, then RIP my darlings. It was good while it lasted.

I'm an INFP-T in a community (this game) that I assume is mostly made of Ts / Thinking types. As an INFP, my situational awareness is poor both in the game and in real life. For me, I always try to get the "feel" of a match, a ship, or a ship type and those feelings have a significant impact on how well I perform. I have difficulty putting personal feelings aside and just adapting to what the meta expects of me, which often leads to me being all emotional in chat about how I feel things could be different. As a P I can be extremely impulsive, a go-with-the-flow kind of player that isn't strong at left-brain analysis and finds studying each ship type and each individual ship down to all of the stats to be way too meticulous. I WISH I had more of a T in me, at least when it comes to playing this game, so I can be more of a strategist and "intellectual" (as Zoup calls it) for once. I would suspect that the top players, or at least the good / very good players, have a tendency towards being TJs, or at least Ts. My Enneagram is 4W5, 4's the individualist and 5's the exploratory idealist. I have a preference for solo play and at least in my opinion, solo play is perhaps the best measure of an individual player's skill. The exploratory idealist in me always wants to try new things but without a specific goal in mind. Gameplay wise I'm a CA main and a BB secondary. I shift between periods of overthinking (that's the N / Intuitive in me) and being overly optimistic / impulsive (that's the P in me). Now, going by actual personality statistics, I belong to a pretty rare type especially for guys (but then INFP / J women are fairly rare too). IRL I often find a lot of typical "guy" things (if we go by the typical STJ / STP standards) to be pretty unappealing. Many of my best connections have been with women (not necessarily romantic) and I don't see much of a difference at all when it comes to building bonds with them. I either like someone or I don't, regardless of gender.

Did he quit? Would be sad to see him go.

Yeah I agree, Boise has the heal but the slower speed, reload, and shorter range can really handicap her. Helena's been a blast for me, providing she has enough team support on her flanks, she's an area denial platform that can rain inferno on the enemy (as long as they're charging in). She's my most played ship, I've got a 66.9k average damage in her and a 57% win rate. Damage and WR used to be higher before a string of bad matches last Christmas. I haven't played much this year. I broke my all-time damage record in her (161k damage) and it was in a Tier 9 match on Islands of Fire. Really awesome ship though she can be really situational and struggles on maps with lots of open water because she's a typical USN CL that relies on island cover to conceal herself. Love my Helena. When she was announced I knew I'd have a blast in her, and she's not disappointed me. She was, by far, the one ship I was looking forward to when the USN light cruisers were announced. Heavy cruisers will get melted in close-up fights. They simply don't have the rate of fire while she's got the rate of fire and number of guns to make short work of almost every cruiser +1 / -2 tiers. With IFHE the guns hit hard at almost everything. DDs get melted, cruisers get demolished, BBs burn like a haystack on fire.

I wonder what happened to Reymu's weekend threads? Lol.

Still quite a wait. Personally looking forward to Devonshire and London as they’re the County-class ships that were built and served. Looking forward to seeing Dorsetshire and Kent as premiums.

As the title says, when do you think is likely for the British CAs to go live? Will London come before or after the silver ships?

Thanks for the tips. Will the full CA line and London be released in 0.8.10? Will that be in December, perhaps?

Overall it seems the opinions are quite mixed but leaning towards the negative. I guess with the concerns over the SAP I’ll look forward to the British CAs instead (December 2019?) until they fix the SAP or just give these cruisers normal HE and AP.

But why would they deliberately fudge with Devonshire by giving her these incorrect AA setups / the inaccurate hull? I’d like to try out London (it has the smoke), Devonshire, and Hawkins. I’ve also heard something about “Active Maneuvering Armor”, not quite sure how that works and whether it will be implemented. Will these CAs have good enough (depending on how you look at it) shell velocities to incorporate island cover as a major part of their gameplay? Hope to see these ships by the end of the year. I am by far the most interested in the Counties, hope they won’t turn out to be gimmicky/ weak.

I have an Exeter and I’ve played about 5 battles in it. I haven’t done too well in it so far due to bad luck with teams, but I’d like to continue playing it because I enjoyed the Furutaka with its WW2 gun layout. I wonder how well the Exeter does when up-tiered into Tier 7 matches (which T5 is notorious for), and whether it requires major changes to the play style? Can it be played as a ship that uses lots of island cover? What concerns me about the Exeter in Tier 7 matches is the slow reload and being outgunned both by CAs like the Myoko (and now Zara) and CLs like Atlanta, Helena etc. that have far better DPM and will shred me at close range. I’m also not sure if six barrels will be enough to make her a good fire starter against battleships. Really wish they would have kept the smoke, I’d give up DFAA for that. Extending my concerns with the Exeter to the RN CA line (when will they be released?), since I have a strong preference for playing shops that were built and served, I am most interested in the County class at Tier 6, London and Devonshire. Someone in another thread pointed out that Devonshire’s AA armament is post-1943/44 refit but that refit also led to the removal of a gun turret. For the sake of historical accuracy, I’d like to see her in her pre-refit configuration because then it would be historically accurate to have all 4 of her gun turrets. London will have smoke, which is good. However, I am confused as to what role these CAs will play. Their range is abysmal and their armor is paper thin. Are they expecting us to play them as island huggers, lobbing shells over islands in the manner of the USN CLs and CAs like the DM?

7’s not as good as before. Part of the reason why I did so well in some T7 ships was because prior to these changes 7 was top tier a lot. I don’t know about 5 and 6, or even 8, perhaps these tiers are now better than 7? 9 and 10 is not really my thing because the maps are too big and I hate the slow pace of matches. Also see worse players at high tier than at mid tier.

Well if the changes to Tier 8 are really as good as advertised, then for the first time I might give Tier 8 a go.

Most premium ships do not give players a decisive advantage over non-premium ships. You wouldn't believe how many players with little to no experience end up purchasing high-tier premium ships that they have no idea whatsoever how to play, and end up being a burden for the team more than the contrary.